Advanced Class Guide Preview: Arcanist

When did they remove the hybrid limitation? I failed to see that anywhere, not saying it didn't happen, but that was part of the balancing factors for MANY of these classes, so I really hope that is not the case.

It was mentioned in one of the ACG blog posts, though I don't have a link offhand.

I just pictured half of the heads in this thread exploding at the thought of an Arcanist with an Eidolon.

...

I think White Mage is still the archetype I'm most looking forward to though. I wonder if it has the ability to eventually access status removal type spells, or if it's as simple as the little preview statement indicates and basically just lets you funnel your arcane resevoir into healing.

I'm hoping it's the former, an arcane class capable of stepping in to the main healer role would be really cool.

Ross Byers wrote:

Scavion wrote:

The Arcanist is now Schrodinger's Wizard made manifest.

The Schrodinger's wizard is the wizard who always has the right spell prepared. An arcanist with Quick Study always has the right spell prepared...a round and a half from now.

I think that's a fairly substantial difference.

It actually takes 3 turns to cast that spell.

1 to waste the move action to get the book out.
1 to spend a full round preparing it.
And another one to actually be able to cast it, Quckened Shenanigans notwithstanding.

Schrodinger's Wizard is also someone who has access to all spells and not just the ones in his spellbook, which is a limitation that everyone criticizing this class seems to be forgetting.

I am 100% okay with these classes being designed better than the core classes. Because this class is designed better, it does not necessarily mean it is overpowered.

I think you misunderstood me. Schrodinger's Wizard is essentially a pipe dream. Being able to replicate that theory and put it into practice for such a low cost in such short time is incredibly powerful.

Also I feel it's a pretty semantic thing to penalize a turn of getting the book out when clearly an Arcanist who has the intent of doing so would already have it out.

Then we get to different definitions of Schrodinger's Wizard. If you effectively have a more than suitable spell available to you, you don't need to access all spells.

Until I see the final document, I will hold my opinion on whether this class is well designed.

Uniquely enough I started to design a world senerio with two nations at war with each other, one under divine magic dominance, the other under a arcane magic dominance. (like the war between science and religion)

I've been playing around with the hidden cleric and false divine magic abilities to paint insurgents within each kingdom, and also how a arcane run nation deals with the need for healing magic and how the divine one deals with the lack of many spells available only to the arcane.

with the white mage archetype, I can add another healer class to the arcane list (so far being alchemist and witch).

there is also a conflict between the new and the old ways in both nations. (Divine:Old Ways, Druid. New Ways, Cleric. Arcane:Old Ways, Witch. New Ways: Wizard.)

Also I feel it's a pretty semantic thing to penalize a turn of getting the book out when clearly an Arcanist who has the intent of doing so would already have it out.

Clearly at all times Schrodinger's wizard also has his book out in case he needs to change spells.

This is getting ridiculous people.

[image=skyfalling.jpg]OH MY GOD[/image]

No bard?

.Also I feel it's a pretty semantic thing to penalize a turn of getting the book out when clearly an Arcanist who has the intent of doing so would already have it out.

Even then, it's a full-round action. That's a turn. I suppose you could combo it with Quicken Spell, but the odds that a spell 4 levels below your highest level is the silver bullet you need is fairly low. Compare that with having a bunch of scrolls in a handy haversack, which is something wizards and sorcerers can already do.

And if he has his spellbook in hand (and has a free hand to turn pages with), then he isn't also holding things like

• Scrolls
• Weapons
• Metamagic rods
• Staves
• Wands
• Alchemical items

Also I feel it's a pretty semantic thing to penalize a turn of getting the book out when clearly an Arcanist who has the intent of doing so would already have it out.

There are good reasons why prepared casters do not walk around with their spellbooks in hand.

Many tears will be shed by arcanists trying this.

Like it or not, negative criticism is just as valuable as positive. People are too quick to mindlessly defend everything Paizo does, but that doesn't help the company to improve. Quite the contrary, in fact. If every poor decision Paizo makes is met with praise, what reason do they have to try and improve things next time?

Negative criticism is not what I was talking about. It's also been in remarkably short supply in this thread. Let me repeat myself:

Frankly, if you think "criticism" is the right word for the bile being spewed in this thread and the warpriest one, I think the internet has badly skewed your definition of the term.

Criticism is fine. What has been happening in these threads is not criticism, and it's not fine.

Brother Cyrus wrote:

Also I feel it's a pretty semantic thing to penalize a turn of getting the book out when clearly an Arcanist who has the intent of doing so would already have it out.

There are good reasons why prepared casters do not walk around with their spellbooks in hand.

Many tears will be shed by arcanists trying this.

Are you implying that your DM might try to steal or damage your very expensive, 100% crippling class McGuffin? You sir, have gone too far!!

Artanthos wrote:

Brother Cyrus wrote:

Also I feel it's a pretty semantic thing to penalize a turn of getting the book out when clearly an Arcanist who has the intent of doing so would already have it out.

There are good reasons why prepared casters do not walk around with their spellbooks in hand.

Many tears will be shed by arcanists trying this.

Are you implying that your DM might try to steal or damage your very expensive, 100% crippling class McGuffin? You sir, have gone too far!!

If that were to happen, the Sky would.....

Brother Cyrus wrote:

.Also I feel it's a pretty semantic thing to penalize a turn of getting the book out when clearly an Arcanist who has the intent of doing so would already have it out.

Even then, it's a full-round action. That's a turn. I suppose you could combo it with Quicken Spell, but the odds that a spell 4 levels below your highest level is the silver bullet you need is fairly low. Compare that with having a bunch of scrolls in a handy haversack, which is something wizards and sorcerers can already do.

And if he has his spellbook in hand (and has a free hand to turn pages with), then he isn't also holding things like

• Scrolls
• Weapons
• Metamagic rods
• Staves
• Wands
• Alchemical items

I realized that you could probably abuse Quick Study if you've gotten yourself a prehensile tail, prehensile hair, vestigial arm, or taken a race with more than two hands so that you could clutch a quicken metamagic rod while still flipping through a spellbook. But that seems like a lot of effort to duplicate what a Wizard can do with a handy haversack full of scrolls.

Ah, found it. The bit about hybrids no longer being unable to multiclass with their parent classes in in the May 21, 2014 blog post. Along with a heaping of other snippets.

Criticism is fine. What has been happening in these threads is not criticism, and it's not fine.

Perhaps you are the one not reading my posts... I'm pointing out the class flaws (It's overpowered) and giving my reasons for thinking so (full caster with extremely powerful class features, completely obsoletes Sorcerers) without ever making a single personal attack.

How does that not qualify as criticism?

Everything Sorcerers do, Arcanists can do better.

It's much easier to get extra spell slots than it is to get extra spells known. And as its been pointed out, Arcanists vcan dump Cha to 7 and still be completely fine.

If "Paragon Surge + Extra Arcana" is the argument for why Sorcerers are not obsolete, then this only shows how OP Arcanists are.

I don't recall directing my post at you. Moreover, I didn't say anyone was making personal attacks.

Ah, found it. The bit about hybrids no longer being unable to multiclass with their parent classes in in the May 21, 2014 blog post. Along with a heaping of other snippets.

Pulling from that, we know there are some other arcanist archetypes, too.

The blood arcanist and unlettered arcanist aren't described, but we can add them to the list with the brown-fur transmuter, blade adept, eldritch font, elemental master, white mage, and arcanist occultist.

Edit: Jason's post just lists 'occultist' instead of 'ArcanistOccultist', as the image was labeled.

Lemmy wrote:

Like it or not, negative criticism is just as valuable as positive. People are too quick to mindlessly defend everything Paizo does, but that doesn't help the company to improve. Quite the contrary, in fact. If every poor decision Paizo makes is met with praise, what reason do they have to try and improve things next time?

Negative criticism is not what I was talking about. It's also been in remarkably short supply in this thread. Let me repeat myself:

Me, in a post Lemmy might not have actually read wrote:

Frankly, if you think "criticism" is the right word for the bile being spewed in this thread and the warpriest one, I think the internet has badly skewed your definition of the term.

Criticism is fine. What has been happening in these threads is not criticism, and it's not fine.

I'm really not sure where the "bile" you are referring to is, unless you're talking about the people on the other side of the conversation attempting to portray Paizo's critics as a frenzied flock of Chicken Littles.

If people were making violent commentary regarding the mothers of Paizo employees, that would be one thing. But... no one is doing that. Or anything close to it. People are voicing their complaints and their worries about how the Arcanist appears to be an improvement over what is already one of (if not the) best class in the game. People aren't mindlessly hating for the sake of hate; I am very fond of the Slayer and bring it up often as an example of what pure martials should look like and as a major success for Paizo's development team. I am far less happy with the Arcanist and am every bit as clear with my opinion in that regard.

If being concerned about the flexibility of Quick Study and requesting examples of what Paizo has done to counterbalance that level of power isn't a valid thing to do then I'm not sure what I can say here without being portrayed as a brainless troll by everyone who disagrees with me.

I don't recall directing my post at you. Moreover, I didn't say anyone was making personal attacks.

You specifically quoted me, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume you're directing your post at least in part to me.

Everything Sorcerers do, Arcanists can do better.

Everything an Arcanist can do, I've done better with a sorcerer equipped with a Ring of Spell Knowledge 4, a Memonic Vestment, and a collection of scrolls/spellbooks.

Sure it costs money, and doesn't apply as much past level 10, but I think you get the idea. My PFS sorcerer was considered more versitile than a wizard with those items.

Everything Sorcerers do, Arcanists can do better.

Sorcerers are easier to play with less system mastery.

Sorcerer bloodlines (especially the arcana) let them do certain things better than arcanists or wizards.

A page of spell knowledge is just as easy to get as a pearl of power.

The human favored class option for sorcerers can get lots of extra spells known.

I think the arcanist is a powerful class. It certainly could be (and probably is) stronger than the sorcerer. But 'completely obsoletes' is overstating things. And sorcerer is hardly the strongest class in the game.

Cthulhudrew wrote:

Ah, found it. The bit about hybrids no longer being unable to multiclass with their parent classes in in the May 21, 2014 blog post. Along with a heaping of other snippets.

Pulling from that, we know there are some other arcanist archetypes, too.

The blood arcanist and unlettered arcanist aren't described, but we can add them to the list with the brown-fur transmuter, blade adept, eldritch font, elemental master, white mage, and arcanist occultist.

O.o

Why must the names be so intriguing?!

I just pictured half of the heads in this thread exploding at the thought of an Arcanist with an Eidolon.

It's an interesting thought, but I can't imagine how the heck you'd balance it. Maybe with the half-strength eidolon the master summoner gets?

Hmmm... maybe the occultist is an archetype that get access to the shaman's spirit bond?

Ross Byers wrote:

Cthulhudrew wrote:

Ah, found it. The bit about hybrids no longer being unable to multiclass with their parent classes in in the May 21, 2014 blog post. Along with a heaping of other snippets.

Pulling from that, we know there are some other arcanist archetypes, too.

The blood arcanist and unlettered arcanist aren't described, but we can add them to the list with the brown-fur transmuter, blade adept, eldritch font, elemental master, white mage, and arcanist occultist.

O.o

Why must the names be so intriguing?!

The blood arcanist probably has something to do with sorcerer bloodlines (like the first playtest version did).

Well, I was not expecting this Overpowered class to gain even more power. Simply every single thing a sorcerer can do the arcanist can do better. Hell, the arcanist can easily pick up the draconic bloodline abilities plus the wizard school abilities and still not even worry about charisma. The only thing saving the wizard is getting spells one level earlier. We are actually discussing some of the most powerful classes in game being outdated here.

After, the nerf to the warpriest (not a hugely useful class now) plus buffing what seems on the surface to be a very OP class worries me a lot about the book itself.

Hmmm... maybe the occultist is an archetype that get access to the shaman's spirit bond?

Now there's an interesting thought. That's actually something I might really like to see.

The blood arcanist probably has something to do with sorcerer bloodlines (like the first playtest version did).

You know, I was having the same thought about the unlettered arcanist.

Simply every single thing a sorcerer can do the arcanist can do better.

Except having more spells per day.

Or having more spells known than the arcanist has spells prepared (because of bloodline spells. Options like the human favored class option just stretch this further.)

Or getting bloodline powers above level 1.

Hell, the arcanist can easily pick up the draconic bloodline abilities plus the wizard school abilities and still not even worry about charisma.

Unless those exploits are updated, or changed to require Charisma.

The only thing saving the wizard is getting spells one level earlier.

And having access to more different spells at one time.

I'm guessing that the Unlettered Arcainist doesn't require a spellbook, but can only knows a certain number of spells.

And the Blood Arcainist has a more powerful version of the bloodline exploit allowing for a more sorcerer like progression of their bloodline abilities.

The Occultist I'm guessing should have some sort of minor eidolon or improved familiar. but I'm also thinking their may be some witch like power at work with that archetype.

Man, watching the heads explode here is worth the price of admission. I've got some umbrellas I can sell if you are really scared.

It can do much of what a sorcerer can do...

Except for you know, when you compare the total number of spell slots per day.

8th level sorcerer: 6/6/5/3
8th level arcanist: 4/4/4/2

Just saying folks. Wait for the full class. I understand your criticisms. Thats part of the process. Lets just keep it civil and not get into arguments with each other.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

To clarify the issue I'm having with this thread (which is, I suspect, the one many people are having), it's not about content, it's tonal. And I'd go further and say there's some on both sides of the argument.

It's not that people object to any criticism of Paizo, it's that people on the side of the argument doing the criticism are coming off as really upset, specifically in a "How dare they!" or "They're incompetent!" kinda way...which is not generally conducive to a productive conversation. As well as seeming to leap to conclusions about the final class, which is part of the reason for the above emotions and also doesn't help the situation at all.

People on the other side, meanwhile, are ridiculing the first side despite them having perfectly reasonable balance concerns given the info currently available, which is also not generally conducive to productive conversation.

So can everyone just take a step back and calm down a little? The issues being discussed are legitimate, I just think something of a tonal shift is needed for the discussion to be productive.

To clarify the issue I'm having, it's not about content, it's tonal. And I'd go further and say there's some on both sides of the argument.

It's not that people object to any criticism of Paizo, it's that people on that side of the argument are coming off as really upset, specifically in a "How dare they!" or "They're incompetent!" kinda way...which is not generally conducive to a productive conversation. As well as seeming to leap to conclusions about the final class, which is part of the reason for the above emotions and also doesn't help the situation at all.

People on the other side, meanwhile, are ridiculing the first side despite them having perfectly reasonable balance concerns given the info currently available, which is also not generally conducive to productive conversation.

So can everyone just take a step back and calm down a little? The issues being discussed are legitimate, I just think something of a tonal shift is needed for the discussion to be productive.

I think you may be getting the wrong feeling from a number of the people who are posting. Remember that emotion (or lack there-of) does not convey well in a written medium.

Should I start adding smilies to everything I say? ;)

I think you may be getting the wrong feeling from a number of the people who are posting. Remember that emotion (or lack there-of) does not convey well in a written medium.

Should I start adding smilies to everything I say? ;)

I don't seem to be the only one getting the impression in question, though. So...sorta? Or add conditionals like 'based on what we know now it looks like...' or other methods of tonal change.

I don't recall any issues with what you said specifically, but switching tones seems to be the optimal way to resolve this.

I'm guessing that the Unlettered Arcainist doesn't require a spellbook, but can only knows a certain number of spells.

What would distinguish that from, say, just a sorcerer?

Also, does anyone want to take a crack at Jason's archetype list and try to figure out if there are more archetypes that might belong to the arcanist (or previously previewed classes) that don't actually have 'arcanist' in the name?

The blood arcanist and unlettered arcanist aren't described...

I'm curious about that unlettered arcanist. Maybe he's an illiterate barbarian? Some kind of cross between a Bloodrager and Arcanist?

Edit: Jason's post just lists 'occultist' instead of 'ArcanistOccultist', as the image was labeled.

Yes- I noticed that, too. I'm still curious about the one from the Bloodrager preview, which was labeled Spellstorm. The name isn't on the list of archetypes, so either he missed it or it changed names at some point. Considering all the other images correspond to an archetype name, it seems unlikely now that that image is a non-archetype.

Ross Byers wrote:

The blood arcanist and unlettered arcanist aren't described...

I'm curious about that unlettered arcanist. Maybe he's an illiterate barbarian? Some kind of cross between a Bloodrager and Arcanist?

Quote:

Edit: Jason's post just lists 'occultist' instead of 'ArcanistOccultist', as the image was labeled.

Yes- I noticed that, too. I'm still curious about the one from the Bloodrager preview, which was labeled Spellstorm. The name isn't on the list of archetypes, so either he missed it or it changed names at some point. Considering all the other images correspond to an archetype name, it seems unlikely now that that image is a non-archetype.

My guess on the Spell Storm is that it is actually spell art. Maybe for a Bloodrager only spell?

Also, does anyone want to take a crack at Jason's archetype list and try to figure out if there are more archetypes that might belong to the arcanist (or previously previewed classes) that don't actually have 'arcanist' in the name?

I might when I get home. I think the archetypes indicated in this preview are among the most telling so far, as several of them were things that I wouldn't have associated with the arcanist based on name alone. So it seems there may be some interesting surprises vis a vis which classes get which archetypes.

Cthulhudrew wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

The blood arcanist and unlettered arcanist aren't described...

I'm curious about that unlettered arcanist. Maybe he's an illiterate barbarian? Some kind of cross between a Bloodrager and Arcanist?

Quote:

Edit: Jason's post just lists 'occultist' instead of 'ArcanistOccultist', as the image was labeled.

Yes- I noticed that, too. I'm still curious about the one from the Bloodrager preview, which was labeled Spellstorm. The name isn't on the list of archetypes, so either he missed it or it changed names at some point. Considering all the other images correspond to an archetype name, it seems unlikely now that that image is a non-archetype.

My guess on the Spell Storm is that it is actually spell art. Maybe for a Bloodrager only spell?

I had assumed it to be a spell or ability as well.

Could be a class feature too.

Sorcerers are easier to play with less system mastery.

Doesn't make Arcanist any more balanced. Ease of use =/= Power. Warriors are extremely use to use. Doesn't make them any more powerful.

Sorcerer bloodlines (especially the arcana) let them do certain things better than arcanists or wizards.

Too bad Arcanists can use Sorcerer's Arcana. And anyone can grab Eldritch Heritage

A page of spell knowledge is just as easy to get as a pearl of power.

Yup. But raising your casting attribute doesn't give you more spells known.

The human favored class option for sorcerers can get lots of extra spells known.

And that's assuming Arcanists don't get anything similar.

I think the arcanist is a powerful class. It certainly could be (and probably is) stronger than the sorcerer. But 'completely obsoletes' is overstating things.

I fear it isn't.

And sorcerer is hardly the strongest class in the game.

Never said it is. Just said it's a very powerful class.

It can do much of what a sorcerer can do...

Except for you know, when you compare the total number of spell slots per day.

8th level sorcerer: 6/6/5/3
8th level arcanist: 4/4/4/2

Just saying folks. Wait for the full class. I understand your criticisms. Thats part of the process. Lets just keep it civil and not get into arguments with each other.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Yeah...Not a significant difference, especially considering how easy it's to raise spell slots (and pseudo-spell slots, Arcanists can always make scrolls of situational spells and then never bother to memorize it again). and how powerful Arcane Exploits (or whatever they are named, can't remember right now) are in comparison to Bloodline powers, not to mention the far greater number of skill points and the fact that Arcanists have no equal when it comes to metamagic feats.

Arcanists have interesting class features. They do seem like a cool class, but they do obsolete Sorcerers. Sure there'll always be that moment where the Sorcerer have an advantage, but 80%, an Arcanist would be more effective.

These are the archetypes that I think can be Arcanist - Bolt Ace, Emperisict, exploiter wizard, Eldritch Scion, Spell Specialist, Spell Warrior

Ross Byers wrote:

The blood arcanist and unlettered arcanist aren't described...

I'm curious about that unlettered arcanist. Maybe he's an illiterate barbarian? Some kind of cross between a Bloodrager and Arcanist?

Quote:

Edit: Jason's post just lists 'occultist' instead of 'ArcanistOccultist', as the image was labeled.

Yes- I noticed that, too. I'm still curious about the one from the Bloodrager preview, which was labeled Spellstorm. The name isn't on the list of archetypes, so either he missed it or it changed names at some point. Considering all the other images correspond to an archetype name, it seems unlikely now that that image is a non-archetype.

Jason referred to archetypes being tough to design for classes with a built-in swap-out mechanism like bloodlines. Maybe it's a Bloodrage bloodline? That would be almost an archetype.

Or maybe they're just trying to pull cool artwork for that class, and in most cases that's an archetype? So it could be a bloodrager spell, feat, bloodrage power, etc.

exploiter wizard

That sounds more like a Wizard archetype that gets arcane exploits to me. I guess instead of school powers/bonus feats?

Yup. But raising your casting attribute doesn't give you more spells known.

Raising her casting stat gives the arcanist more spells per day, not spells prepared.

Anything the arcanist can do to get more spells per day, the sorcerer can do too. Pearls of power, rings of wizardry, higher casting stats...you can't compare a buffed arcanist to an unbuffed sorcerer.

The Bloodrager one probably a spell, not archetype. I don't think Arcanist is really that much more powerful. As with the magus they can nova hard, but over a multiple fight day they come down to earth pretty quick.

I also don't think the Warpreist was a nerf, really just making it less better than everything else. The Shaman also needs to be brought back to earth. I of course am super excited for this book and can't wait to get it!!! I am firmly in the "Lets actually see how the class is written before passing judgment" camp.

If I recall the Gunslinger was considered much too strong in the Playtest and so was the Magus, but both are much more in line now.

These are the archetypes that I think can be Arcanist - Bolt Ace, Emperisict, exploiter wizard, Eldritch Scion, Spell Specialist, Spell Warrior

I suspect Exploiter Wizard really is a wizard, but probably one who trades his school for exploits.

I'm a little curious about how many more arcanist archetypes there can really be, considering there's supposed to be new archetypes for all the core and base classes as well.

**EDIT**

Ninja'd by the Ross-man.

My problem with the class is that it take away from the wizard in the flavor departement. Until not that long ago, and even more with arcane discoveries, wizards was the folks that undestood magic, the magic engeneers and scientists the guys that pushed the borders of reality. Now they are guys with spells but a new class have take most of the flavor. Every wizard i have ever played and most of the ones i have read about in books fit the arcanist description better. Pehaps the guys that love knigths felt like this when the cavalier came and became the knigth and figther was no longer the choice for this fantasy hero type. I dont Care if it is OP i Will just houserule it a bit but i Think every great wizard in most worlds Will turn out to have been Arcanists. Just like most rogues Will have been slagers and investigators. The rogue type hero needed a save. The wizard fulfilled his role fine and the arcanist is taking form that. But i look forvard to playing one if my GM Will let me.

Everything Sorcerers do, Arcanists can do better.

Not true. They can use bloodline powers, but they have to spend their finite reserve of arcane points to do that. Also, they cannot cast as many spells in a day as a sorcerer can.

It's much easier to get extra spell slots than it is to get extra spells known. And as its been pointed out, Arcanists vcan dump Cha to 7 and still be completely fine.

Incorrect. We've already been told that various Arcanist class features will depend on Cha. (And, honestly, if there's much NPC interaction in the game, nobody regardless of class should be fine dumping Cha to 7.) Meanwhile, the Sorcerer can dump Int to 7 and not lose much other than skills (which sorcerers don't need to be studly anyway).

I'm a little curious about how many more arcanist archetypes there can really be, considering there's supposed to be new archetypes for all the core and base classes as well.

There are over 100 archetypes in the list Jason posted. I imagine there will only be one or two at most for the core and base classes, largely centered around archetypes for the "parent" classes of the hybrids (so they can use some of the new "stuff"). Which I guess could still be a big chunk of change, but I'd imagine there would be at leat 5-6 archetypes for each new class.

brad2411 wrote:

These are the archetypes that I think can be Arcanist - Bolt Ace, Emperisict, exploiter wizard, Eldritch Scion, Spell Specialist, Spell Warrior

I suspect Exploiter Wizard really is a wizard, but probably one who trades his school for exploits.

I'm a little curious about how many more arcanist archetypes there can really be, considering there's supposed to be new archetypes for all the core and base classes as well.

**EDIT**

Ninja'd by the Ross-man.

Yep In all truth I was also thinking the spell specialist is going to be a wizard and possibly the Bolt Ace. Spell warrior could also be a magus. But the empiricist I am hoping is the arcanist that uses something like Words of Power or the ability to experiment with spells in a cool way but then again it could also be the alchemist